Lots of shit going on / Sandboxes

[squeen]

Yes, that's what I mean--that everything in the fantasy world (i.e. sandbox) has a logical consistency. That's what I prefer (and realize others may not). Thanks DP.

...as oppose to a Fun House dungeon?

If I am not getting my terminology wrong, limited plausibility with the current context is sometimes referred to as "Gygaxian Naturalism".

 

[Malrex]

...as oppose to a Fun House dungeon?

If I am not getting my terminology wrong, limited plausibility with the current context is sometimes referred to as "Gygaxian Naturalism".

Fun house dungeon can work--A weird old wizard tower = weird stuff will be found. The weird and the unexplainable are great!! Things not making sense is not (to me).

For example, White Plume Mountain. It's a fun house adventure..right?, but some of the stuff just makes me roll my eyes. I think I told the DM that I would just wait for the monsters in the ziggurat to get hungry and eat each other so I had less to fight. Put in live food that enters the containers once in awhile magically--cool! problem solved. The bandits just stay in that room waiting for canoes to go by?? I like the floating river--I don't mind weird...but placing bandits there was just dumb to me and seemed lazy. So...the giant crab just stays there and waits around? Cool, I'll wait for it to starve too then. And if that doesn't work, then why not? That makes the DM have to think up something on the spot? Wouldn't that be considered poor design?

Am I asking for every dungeon to have a shitter? No...not everything has to be spelled out, but I just prefer an approach that makes some logical sense.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I disagree. As a player, I can tell when an encounter is there for the sake of having an encounter. Especially if I am colouring outside the lines; if there is a main road and a forest road, and I decide to trailblaze through the woods between the two roads, and I still run into a set piece battle, I know something is up.

This is why tools to procedurally create content are so useful, so that not just the type of encounter but the odds of having one respond to player choices, rather then the DM decreeing that thou shalt have an encounter irrespective of the choices you make.

It comes down to DM skill... and having the wherewithal to adapt to a changing situation.

One path leads to a very crude tent made from mammoth pelt. The other path is covered in dollops of spoor, and you can hear singing birds from further ahead. Which path has the ogre? Or, to suit your specific argument, which path would feel out of place to find an ogre?

Maybe you decide to go off-path, cut brush through the woods. Oh no, movement ahead! A lumbering brute is hunched over, gathering branches for a fire. If you don't duck away fast, it looks up to catch your gaze, and in a fit of hungry rage charges forward...

Was that a quantum ogre? Or was it always my intent for there to only be one ogre in this story, out gathering firewood?
Only I know.

 

[squeen]

Pretty sure that's a Quantum Ogre (or Bigfoot)---at least, as a player, I'd feel that way.

Now if you rolled a Wandering Monster check, and I either heard/saw a die...then it would easier to swallow.

For the record, as DM, I can be quite bad about this sort of "logical" random encounter. I am striving to be better about using dice to eliminate biased intent.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Your mindset is that of adversarial D&D - you are more concerned with everything being "fair" rather than being "fun".

If the party were making choices and actively trying to avoid the ogre and I made them fight it anyway, without any sort of warning, then I would be playing as an adversary. But when it doesn't come off that way, either because the players aren't actively trying to avoid a fight or because the DM is capable of imitating the randomness of an encounter, then there's not a real problem.

 

[squeen]

Your mindset is that of adversarial D&D - you are more concerned with everything being "fair" rather than being "fun".

Hmmm...I'm not sure one follows the other (or that "adversarial" belongs in that sentence at all), but so long as we all are ultimately having fun---I do strive to be fair and balanced (bad with the good, good with the bad---avoiding excessive player wish-fulfillment/give-away). I think it makes for more long-term enjoyment. Perhaps that's what you are referring to.

DM judgement is unavoidable, and good judgement the hallmark of a good DM---but when you are concerned you might be in danger of railroading an outcome, using the dice seems the best strategy. Both players and DM reacting to a situation, most often makes for a better experience all around. Most of my "intent" for a session should, I think, come from pre-play preparations...setting the stage, so to speak. Then the chips should (mostly) fall where they may without my fat-fingering.

I like to be surprised. I do (secretly) root for the players, and love to see them rise to a challenge.

With regard to "fair" vs. "fun" here's a (very out-of-context) C.S. Lewis quote circa WWII:

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.​

​

The point here being that we find real fun by not catering to it.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think our difference in opinion stems from how we interpret the concept of the Quantum Ogre;

I see it as a narrative slot-filler, a sequential step in the adventure, not as a product of agency but rather of time. The ogre is inevitable, but the high crime of "agency theft" is negated by way of not having given player's agency over this one specific ogre in the first place. They'll have their chances to make choices and affect outcome, it's just that the concept of the quantum ogre is immune to such power by the nature of its being, and so they won't be able to affect it.

The game is whatever interface the players experience - so long as it stays on your side of the screen, for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Quantum ogres live and breathe on the DM's side of the screen, and so likewise should be considered innocent of agency-theft by virtue of its "technical" non-existence.

I can see and appreciate some of the alternative viewpoints:
- citing the quantum ogre as a teleporting, omniscient threat or annoyance. An unfair situation and abuse of DM fiat.
- diminished the sense of freedom/control/agency felt by the party. Against the spirit of the game's free-form/randomized nature.
-fostering a DM vs. Player mentality (adversarial DMing)

A lot of these claims can be retorted with "git gud, DM" (in a nutshell). In particular, mitigating adversarial DMing is a quick fix on the DMs part (since they represent half of the problem - learning how to dial back on the throttle and whatnot), and any perceived agency violation can be smoothed over with narrative technique, improvisation, and/or agency alternatives (i.e. other situations involving agency taking place at the same time - if the quantum ogre exists regardless of agency, the alternative becomes "do you approach the ogre from up on those rocks, or from the safety of the treeline?").

The view of the quantum ogre as railroading is especially interesting, because it flies counter to my personal belief that the game, collaboratively, exists solely as what comes from mouths and goes to ears, and nothing more. Railroading is a problem of pre-cognition about the path ahead, and knowing what actions the party will take regardless of their choices. At worst wat we have is more of a "ride in the fog", in that the players may or may not be on rails, but they can't see beyond a foot in front of their own faces. Are they turning left or right ahead? Who knows... too much fog. Well the DM knows - he doesn't see any fog, and has a bird's eye view. But like all things DM-side, none of it exists until it's communicated to the players, so it becomes irrelevant.

 

[squeen]

You seem to be arguing that the Quantum Ogre, like Schrodinger's Cat, is only alive if the players perceive it---i.e. notice the DM fiddling with their loss-of-agency/reality.

A clever bit of sophistry, and not too dastardly at heart, but I'm inclined to say it's still a violation in spirit.
In my boundless naivete, I choose to try and walk a more restrictive path.

 

[Beoric]

It comes down to DM skill...

A dangerous thing to rely on. You are assuming you are, at all times, smarter and more skilled than your players, and that they will not notice their gilded cage.

And you still haven't explained why your roadside ogre encounter should be found if I decide to go cross-country through the woods. That is definitely making my choices meaningless; if I take an action specifically to avoid encounters, but you make me have the encounters anyway, then my choices mean nothing. And if I get wind of the fact that you are doing it, then there is no incentive for me to try different things, and I start to lose interest in your game. I only have to catch you a couple of times before I start to lose trust in you because I suspect you are nerfing all of my choices. Note that most players won't say anything, or even necessarily know what the problem is themselves; they just quietly become less engaged. Trust me, this has happened to me as a player more than once.

If only the DM's choices matter, the game is no longer collaborative. The story now belongs to the DM, or the adventure designer.

I also take issue with your assertion that forcing an encounter is not adversarial, while allowing your players a chance to avoid the encounter is adversarial.

As for definitions, Courtney Campbell, who coined the phrase "quantum ogre", defines it as "a situation in which the Dungeon Master removes agency* from the players because of his desire for an outcome." @squeen he chose the phrase specifically because of its similarity to Schroedinger's cat. I can't find his earlier articles, which were a bit disjointed, but his current thoughts can be found here.

I will add to this that using quantum ogres can also be a lost opportunity to tell players something about your world. For example, if ogres like hills and you teleport them onto the forest road, then your players don't get the chance to learn that ogres like hills.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

A dangerous thing to rely on. You are assuming you are, at all times, smarter and more skilled than your players, and that they will not notice their gilded cage.

They notice "the gilded cage" by virtue of the fact that we are not really people in a fantasy land; we are a group of a half-dozen adults congregating around an IKEA table in my dining room. It's one thing to tout verisimilitude, but this pertains to the unspoken, unwritten social contract we all adhere to by virtue of the game being collaborative. Whether or not the players notice or fail to notice anything, the underlying premise of the whole evening's entertainment hinges on the suspension of such hang-ups for the sake of having fun. If your players can't do that, and absolutely must needle everything you do as a DM, then frankly you've got a busted party.

And you still haven't explained why your roadside ogre encounter should be found if I decide to go cross-country through the woods. That is definitely making my choices meaningless; if I take an action specifically to avoid encounters, but you make me have the encounters anyway, then my choices mean nothing. And if I get wind of the fact that you are doing it, then there is no incentive for me to try different things, and I start to lose interest in your game. I only have to catch you a couple of times before I start to lose trust in you because I suspect you are nerfing all of my choices. Note that most players won't say anything, or even necessarily know what the problem is themselves; they just quietly become less engaged. Trust me, this has happened to me as a player more than once.

Disagree. For one, if you decide to go cross-country into the woods in an area you suspect has ogres, it's not exactly going to come off as an unfair surprise if the party encounters an ogre. The only way this would be totally unfair is if you had said "there's only one ogre in the whole world, and he's literally right in front of you" and the party decided to take an alternate route and yet still encountered the ogre. That would be some teleportation bullshit. But in every other scenario, the outcome of meeting the ogre is a possibility that exists, and therefore would not be considered unfair to encounter.

Second, you gripe about your choices meaning nothing, as if a single outcome made with predetermination would mean that all the games outcomes are predetermined. This is ONE case of ONE choice being an illusion. There is no trust lost, there is no paranoia fostered... the players can't see on my side of the screen (into the realm of the quantum ogre), and the worst outcome they could argue is that instead of having fun by supposedly "outwitting" the DMs plans, they instead get to go through my pre-planned material (which will be better than anything done through improvisation).

If only the DM's choices matter, the game is no longer collaborative. The story now belongs to the DM, or the adventure designer.

You take what I say out of context. I didn't say "only the DM's choices mattered", I said "the game, collaboratively, exists solely as what comes from mouths and goes to ears". Very different. That is to say, everything the DM has behind his screen - all of his notes and prep, all of his plans for which ogres are going to be where at what time - exists in limbo until the players get to interact with it. Do you know why Courtney called it a "Quantum Ogre"? Because things in a quantum state are considered technically non-existent until they are observed/measured/interacted with, at which point their quantum state collapses into the real state of things. All that stuff floating around on the DM side? That's quantum stuff - it only collapses into reality when the players interact with it. All that stuff is absolutely collaborative - the players are the ones who collapse the quantum waveform of the DM into the reality of play through their actions and choices.

I will add to this that using quantum ogres can also be a lost opportunity to tell players something about your world. For example, if ogres like hills and you teleport them onto the forest road, then your players don't get the chance to learn that ogres like hills.

This feels like the least effective way to do any worldbuilding - it's so situationally specific and relies on players picking up details they absolutely will never notice, let alone care about.

 

[Beoric]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[squeen]

Unsurprisingly, I have to side with Beoric. on this. What you describe is exactly the Quantum Ogre. Your notion that game elements exist only after they are spoken aloud is correct---that codifies them. But I think there is an implicit assumption that many/most elements also exist before they are experienced, and that is what the players are exploring.

When I was a player, our DM had filing cabinets of original material he had prepared (insomnia). Knowing that things existed whether or not we ever encountered them was a major source of inspiration for our drive to play and uncover them.

The gaming atmosphere you describe---seems a bit of a casual affair between DM and players looking for an evening's diversion. That is all well and good. In that environment, "lazy DM tricks" are probably fine...and if your players ever suspect you are fudging things a bit to keep them entertained and most importantly the game moving (and fun)...they probably except it. This is D&D = Fun.

But...perhaps I am too much of a simulationist (to quote Bryce)---my mind, as a player, prefers something a bit less elastic. What you are describing would quickly become boring to me (I think). I am too Type A. Too much a naive "believer". I want the world to have as much "substance" as feasible. By analogy, I like that Minecraft creates the entire procedural world BEFORE I start playing, and does not just add content on the fly as I explore it. I'm an explorer at heart. For me it's D&D = Discovery (too).

Just to be complete, let's drag EOTB into this. For him, it's about resource management and puzzle-solving. For lack of a better word, that's D&D = Game.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

But I think there is an implicit assumption that many/most elements also exist before they are experienced, and that is what the players are exploring.

This is where you're all misunderstanding me. You seem to think that the existence of a quantum ogre means that suddenly everything in the game is also a quantum ogre, and therefore the game isn't fun anymore.

THIS IS NOT WHAT I AM ADVOCATING. PLEASE STOP ASSUMING IT IS.

You people are making it seems like the whole campaign is going to be pre-planned and just floating around as quantum ogres, waiting to materialize in front of the players no matter where they go or what they do.

A quantum ogre is a once-in-a-while tool... a fix for a one-time problem. If done with a light touch, your players won't even know it was even a thing. That's what I'm arguing. That's what I mean when I say the problem with quantum ogres is crap DMs who don't know what the hell they're doing.

I also think there's this really weird vibe around here that agency is the end-all, be-all of the game; that somehow if the players don't get to choose at every minutiae then the game won't be any fun. Well nobody says "Oh what the fuck, they went to Cloud City to get AWAY from Darth Vader... why is he there? Not fun, not cool!"... no, instead they say Empire was the best of the original trilogy.

 

[squeen]

I get you now. You are saying that tampering only occasionally, with a deft hand, will neither be noticed or too detrimental.

Sure. I think all will agree it happens from time to time and we are just splitting-hairs a bit on the theory. Not the end of the world---but not ideal either. (Also, as Beoric astutely says, we may not be half as clever or subtle as we'd like to think.)

I think of the Quantum Ogre as a DM temptation---a sin to resist, even if your players will forgive you if (make that when) you stumble occasionally. It's darn hard to just let them "walk on by" your well-prep'd content. The "perfect campaign" has enough content ready, the DM can do this every time. The reason for doing that is an assumed benefit (i.e. fundamental underlying axiom) being that the story that emerges is almost always "better" than the one we can concoct. That's the foundation of the Player Agency reverance (I think). Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.

Circling back my earlier post, if one worries that tampering may be too frequent or heavy-handed, then use dice to put your guilty conscience to rest.

To quote Johnny Cash: "I walk the line."

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The reason for doing that is an assumed benefit (i.e. fundamental underlying axiom) being that the story that emerges is almost always "better" than the one we can concoct. That's the foundation of the Player Agency reverance (I think). Please correct me if I am wrong.

Emergent story can happen regardless of how scripted the event ahead are. "The REAL treasure was the friends we made along the way" and all that jazz. They aren't mutually exclusive nor dependent on one another.

I remember running Age of Worms in my 3e days - yeah it was a Dungeon Mag clusterfuck, and yeah it had all the story and sites pre-scripted (players go here to do this, then have to go there to do that, etc.), but we had SO MUCH tangential improvised stuff alongside the campaign that the players didn't at all feel as though they were hamstrung in their choices. It was in the top 3 of better campaigns we've played because of it, and has resulted in so many inside jokes and memorable improvised NPCs that they still pop up to this day in my current homebrew sandbox.

Whenever the Age of Worms campaign got heavy-handed with leading the players by the nose, it was always accepted under the presumption of "this is the campaign they've made, so I suppose if we want to actually enjoy the material they've spent months writing, then we should probably not pull a 180 and go off in some other direction for no real reason other than to escape the railroad". That's just what mature players do - they adhere to the unspoken player-DM contract of "if you want to have fun, accept that my removal of some of your agency will result in better-planned, more in-depth material ahead". It's not a power move by the DM to win the game or some shit - even rookie players can acknowledge that.

Yes, it is good design to minimize the railroad-iness of your campaign - but by nature of the existence of pre-written material in the first place, you're going to end up having to adhere to SOME sort of boundary that, when crossed, results in less fun play. The fun in the game doesn't come from the idea that you can go off script at any time you want - it comes from interesting/evocative situations and cool/exciting encounters, which (surprise surprise) are often much better when they've had some prep work to back them up.

I see all this like leading a blind man around an amusement park - he's going on the rides you take him to, so why not take him to the best rides? Sure he might get a whiff of funnel cake in the air and insist on getting one himself, and he still gets to say "no I don't want a roller coaster right not" or "hey can we go on a swinging ship ride next", but at the end of the day he's counting on you to make things fun. If he wanders off and sits on a bench, you don't make the day better by insisting that the bench he's on is actually a roller coaster - you take him to a roller coaster!

 

[squeen]

The fun in the game doesn't come from the idea that you can go off script at any time you want - it comes from interesting/evocative situations and cool/exciting encounters, which (surprise surprise) are often much better when they've had some prep work to back them up.

I see all this like leading a blind man around an amusement park - he's going on the rides you take him to, so why not take him to the best rides? Sure he might get a whiff of funnel cake in the air and insist on getting one himself, and he still gets to say "no I don't want a roller coaster right not" or "hey can we go on a swinging ship ride next", but at the end of the day he's counting on you to make things fun. If he wanders off and sits on a bench, you don't make the day better by insisting that the bench he's on is actually a roller coaster - you take him to a roller coaster!

I was going to leave this alone, having said my piece, and hoping others would chime in...but these last two paragraphs you added, strike me as wrong-headed. We are on the same page that the world seeks to engage, but for me, that not what I think "old-school play" (i.e. my notion of D&D) is about at all---leading the blind. It's more like waiving tempting morsels in front of the players' noses and seeing which ones make them bite.

Why does this small philosophical difference matter? I'm not sure---because it can lead to some very similar experiences---but at some level I'm pretty sure it just does. Free will?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

It would be helpful if you could at least identify what is it that rubs you wrong about any of this; that I think would go the furthest towards building a sensible side for the debate. As it stands, I'm arguing against "feelings" and subjective preferences.

What I say and what you do are always going to be different, and that's fine. I'm not setting out to dictate how people should be playing the game - you'll notice my more controversial opinions come from a place of playing devil's advocate, defending what everyone else outright condemns, because the only real concrete belief I hold about D&D is that you shouldn't let anyone who doesn't sit at your table tell you how your game should or shouldn't be run. Tips and advice? Sure, harmless. But insisting that something breaks the game or ruins the fun for everyone when you aren't at my table seeing my players having fun in an unbroken game... it just makes me prone to ignore any opinions presented.

 

[Two orcs]

I have had this conversation many times in the past 20 years, and again yesterday, with a friend. We discovered tabletop roleplaying together but can't stand to play at each others tables, me because as soon as I notice the shuffling of scenery behind the stage the game loses its magic and for him because as soon taking a shotcut through a swamp results in his character being devoured by crocodiles the game loses its appeal. Somehow he's been part of my D&D game for almost 2 years, but we both know that as soon his precious (and it really is cool!) character stumbles into a disintegration ray it will be turned to dust together with his interest in the campaign.

 

[squeen]

It would be helpful if you could at least identify what is it that rubs you wrong about any of this;

The DM "leading" part and the world-tampering in-game to prioritize/maximize fun. That's really all.

EDIT: It's not to say I'm above doing those things---I have. It's just I feel it cheapens the game and I try not to. Sometimes, if it's to the players' benefit, I let them know they are getting off too easy (i.e. they should be dead, etc.) and make a big deal about it, so it's not expected in the future.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The DM "leading" part and the world-tampering in-game to prioritize/maximize fun. That's really all.

Then your problem seems to be with the most extreme case of the Quantum Ogre, and not the typical/sensible use of it.

Deft hand, light touch - "when you've done something right, people won't be sure you did anything at all", and all that.